Revision as of 23:05, 24 March 2009

Template:Active editnotice

WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:RfA Review (WP:RREV).

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

• WP:RFAR
• WP:A/R
• WP:ARB/R
• WP:ARBREQ

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Current requests

wise_dude321

Initiated by Wise dude321 (talk) at 16:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• wise_dude321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party

• Darkness2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff. 1 I am confirming that I am aware of the Arbiration

• Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Spyro_(series)&curid=976412&action=history Repeatedly asked to go to talk page, no talking commenced.

• Link 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Darkness2005 Warnings were given about disruptive edits.

Statement by wise_dude321

A while ago, I completed a review score table for the Spyro (series) article. It was delted, the party that deleted it discussed it with me, and we were happy in the end. I have been trying to uphold that descision. Lately though the second party in this case (Darkness2005) has been re-adding it. I repeatedly deleted it telling him to go to the talk page. When that didn't happen, I had to warn him. Today he went on a spree of trying to re-add it. I had to delete many time. His persistence almost filled up a full page of history. That is all.

Statement by Darkness2005

Comment by uninvolved Sandstein

The issue here seems to be Darkness2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Wise dude321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edit-warring with each other on Spyro (series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) without any useful communication from either of them. I am issuing a 24-hour edit warring block for both, on my own authority, to stop this for now, and recommend that the Committee decline this request because no attempt at prior dispute resolution has taken place.  Sandstein  17:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/10/0/0)

• Decline, no dispute resolution has happened yet. Try WP:3O. Wizardman 19:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Reject On Misplaced Pages, Arbitration cases are the last step in dispute resolution. Please try some other steps. Getting the opinions of more editors usually helps. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per Wizardman and FloNight. -- FayssalF - 19:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per others. Earlier steps in dispute resolution should be tried here. Continue assistance from uninvolved administrators should be helpful in resolving this dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. Perhaps the most appropriate place for this dispute is the editwarring noticeboard. As others have said there has been no previous dispute resolution. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. per others — Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline, per the above. I would recommend to both parties that they review Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, which explains the many options on Misplaced Pages for settling disputes. --Vassyana (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline  Roger Davies 05:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. John Vandenberg 08:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline - Sandstein has dealt with this. Parties are asked to discuss changes to articles instead of edit warring. Carcharoth (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. per all of teh above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong

Initiated by Synergy at 01:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Synergy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Hersfold (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• 1
• Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• First RfC
• Second RfC

See also

• ANI
• Previous declined RFAR

Statement by Synergy

I am here as an uninvolved party from the second RfC on Ryulong and as such, he and I have not been in a dispute that falls under the many concerns raised by the community, in either RfC.

Ryulong has shown, throughout two RfCs, that he is displaying a lack of good judgment. Briefly, he states that he has trouble with a particular editor, and seems he also cannot control himself while editing with him, or conversing. Also, he appears to use his rollback for regular editing, and has made some potentially (if not drastically) serious mistakes with respect to blocking. I fear that, if it was not for the potential threat of this very arbitration case, he would not have agreed to change (I would like to point out that, he only said he'd partially change though).

Lastly, I am filing this on behalf of a number of editors who feel he should have his bit removed. I think that, if he cannot discuss his actions properly, and is unwilling to cease with these kinds of edits, blocking, and reverting, we might not have any other choice. Yet, I do not want him to leave the project, as he has stated (upon this case being filed) he might but his actions cannot be overlooked in the hopes of change through a third RfC. So I ask the committee to take this into consideration and determine a suitable outcome that can possibly retain an experienced user.

Note that there may be other editors who wish to add themselves to this case. Synergy 01:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

To Vassyana and Coren

If I may, and as Tiptoety states: This case was filed before the RfC was closed. So technically, what you are asking is impossible. Essentially, any diffs provided for the RfC will be prior to it, while any diffs presented here would be produced during the RfC (in between his statements and talk page messages on the RfC) or prior to the filing of this case. And for the record, this was the intent of my view on the second RfC (that if members of the community felt an arbitration case was necessary, I would file). The only thing I left open ended, was the time of filing. Synergy 03:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

To Carcharoth

I took this into consideration when filing. I wanted to make sure that discussion was either drawing to a close or giving the appearance of this, and possibly a statement or view that ran contrary to my own (basically, a show of hands that disagree with this being filed). I waited approximately five days, but it never came. Synergy 23:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

To Ryulong

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the edit war and your interactions with Mythdon would also fall under the purview of this arbitration case. Past and present actions with this user, to be specific. The RfC dealt with rollback and usage of the blocking tool, while this case is set to examine pretty much any incident with respect to it (basing this off of Wizardman and CHL's comments that your conduct and behaviour will be looked at), and possibly more as the case develops. Synergy 13:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ryulong

Since the beginning of that RFC, I have been working to change how I use rollback and how I use blocks (and warnings against being blocked). The only thing that's happened at that RFC since then was a pile-on support for the comments made (particularly by Synergy). The first RFC shows that at the time, I was supported by the community. When my use of rollback was brought up by another user at ANI, it was also supported by the community.

In dealing with the editor who I bring up at the RFC, I've been asking other administrators to step in and converse with him to allieviate my loss of patience with him. Every administrator I've asked to intervene has told me that they are not surprised that I lost my patience with the user. Several other users have also had problems with the comments made by this user at the 2nd RFC, as well as his comments towards me or about me (as well as his fervent wish to be an administrator himself).

I no longer make block after block after block or rollback after rollback after rollback as I did in the beginning of my adminship, but I use my administrative tools to do the upkeep of the articles I have on my watchlist. Occasionally, I take a look at AN and ANI and try to help out there.

I saw the comments made by users at this second RFC and have done my best to take these pieces of criticism and change my actions. I've realized a few times that I should not have pressed rollback, and I honestly don't make enough bad blocks (in the long run) for a desysop to be worth it. If anything should be taken into account in this RFAR request, it should be actions taken after the second RFC instead of all of the actions that led to the 2nd RFC (because RFC/U's on administrators have simply been a way to go through all of their edits or actions and pick out the worst possible things to get support on the RFC or RFAR).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

To Tiptoety

As I stated in the RFC, there is no way for my patience to be returned in dealing with Mythdon (the editor I do not name explicitly above, but I'm forced to now). On several occasions, I've asked other administrators (Cyde, Hersfold, MBisanz, JPG-GR, to name a few) to intervene and discuss things with him. On every single one of these occasions, these administrators have told me that they quite clearly see how I have grown tired of dealing with him. Again, the way I talk to him is not going to change, unless I get restrictions to where I cannot talk to him. And I do not threaten to use any administrative tools against him. I say the following: "If you can't work amicably or constructively in this topic area anymore, you may be banned from it." I use "ban" because it takes the community to deal with him. If I had the time, I'd start an RFC on him, but with this, I probably won't have that time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The content of this page's history has nothing to do with this RFAR. It may be an edit war, but not one in which I blocked or used rollback at all, and is simply an example of Mythdon and I butting heads, which also isn't part of this case.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment 3 (to no one in particular)

How am I supposed to show improvement after the second RFC if it was closed directly after this case started? And several of the instances being brought up by these editors with grievances either took place before the second RFC or are simply edits that took place in the early stages of the RFC while I was still taking things in to improve. I changed my statement at the RFC after I saw the greater amount of users who saw I had issues, and Synergy's only involvement was using the RFC to create a petition to start this very RFAR case. Is there no problem with that?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

To Jayvdb

Mythdon and I edit in the same topic area and on the chance that we disagree about content, it might not be beneficial if we were not allowed to discuss. However, when I do talk to him about items, it is extremely difficult for us to converse on the same level and this has what made me lose my patience with him, as several other editors have told me in their own experiences. And out of all of the edits I've made in the past two weeks barely any of them have been use of rollback, and those that I have made are easily backed up. And the single block that Mythdon has decided to bring up for the main fact that I did not tell the user that I blocked him/her is also easily backed up, even amongst the very few blocks I perform nowadays, even after the RFC. I've been taking in the criticism from the RFCs. But Synergy just felt like using the RFC as a petition to start this up, regardless of any changes I have been making which won't be brought up until an evidence page has to be made up if this case gets accepted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by involved Tiptoety

I would like to start by saying that it is truly unfortunate that it has come to this, but I feel that all other methods of communication and dispute resolution has failed.

Ryulong has been a active administrator on Misplaced Pages, and during his time here has helped the project significantly. Unfortunately, he has failed to take constructive criticism from the community at large and has continued to use his administrative tools in a disruptive and at times abusive way. While the second request for comment was in progress, Ryulong has continued to be abrasive, and threatens to use his tools against a user whom he is involved in a dispute with (the founding reason the RfC was filed). I urge the committee to look at all the diffs provided in the second RfC to completely understand the long term patter of disruption.

I would also like to note that in opening the second RfC I hoped that Ryulong would change his behavior and gave him many opportunities, but judging by his most recent actions he has not taken them. I would also like to note that I added the ANI diff to the above list of prior attempts at dispute resolution.

Further comment / reply to Hersfold

I am going to have to disagree with you here Hersfold, there are more issues than just that one block threat that occurred during the second RfC including this block which is a first time block of one week, on a IP editor whom is editing the same subjects as Ryulong. I would also like to not some other questionable rollbacks that were preformed during the RfC, a large removal of non-vandalism content, another removal of non-vandalism content, a rollback of a IP whom made some wikimark up edits (non-vandalism), and rolling back a clearly good faith edit. He also recently threatened to block an IP whom was changing the heading colors on a article that he edits on a regular basis. Tiptoety 14:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Vassyana and Coren

First let me start by saying that the result of the RfC was to come here as the issues being addressed were not being fixed, so there is really no "evidence" of abuse since the RfC...but there is evidence of it during the RfC (or after it was filed). I would also like to note that the RfC was doomed from the start as stated that he was not willing to change his actions. In regards to your request for evidence of further issues during or after the RfC I ask you to look at the diffs provided in the section above (the reply to Hersfold). Tiptoety 19:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Are you ready for IPv6?

He is no longer open to recall, so that point is moot. If you wish to know why, you can ask him but I am not sure it is relevant. Tiptoety 04:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Jayvdb

Yes from the 16th to the 17th Ryulong engaged in a edit war (page history). Also all those diffs cited in the above section directed towards Hersfold are all after the RfC were filled. Please see that section, as I have also asked in multiple other sections. Thanks, Tiptoety 03:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by involved Mythdon

I have been seeing lots of abuse from Ryulong, and as an editor, have been dealing with it. In the past, he has threatened to seek that a block be placed on my account. Now, having provided that diff, I can't see anything wrong with nominating an article for deletion for lacking coverage in reliable sources and not being able to justify notability. He has also made these type of threats to other editors. This is cleary not a blockable offense. It is perfectly fine to have an opposing opinion on an edit, but threatening blocks is not an option. After all, consensus is Misplaced Pages's decision making process. Basically, Ryulong is abusively controlling other editors—not allowing them to do the opposite of what he wants.

As for rollback, he had overused it, and abused it all at once. I have warned him to change the way he uses the function, but he has yet to prove he has really changed, although he hasn't abused rollback in his last 50 edits.

Even if he hasn't done these things lately, "lately" is not enough for permanent change. I invite all editors to dig further from what I have provided as evidence. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Jayvdb

I recently scrolled through one of Ryulong's recent blocks, and he did not leave a message informing the user blocked here of his/her block. I do not know whether or not Ryulong has been confronted for such actions before as I haven't read his first RfC, but I am still bringing that block up as it is too big of an issue not to talk about. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by involved Hersfold

I feel as though this RFAr is premature, and would request that the Committee allow more time for the effects of the RfC to come to light.

In the recent RfC, you will note that a large number of editors all commented similarly; that Ryulong was using his administrator rights and incivil tactics in attempts to gain unfair advantages in discussions and to dissuade editors who disagreed with him. You will further note that I was one of these editors, and in fact certified the RfC. Since then, however, with the wide range of criticism and advice brought in from that RfC, I believe Ryulong is attempting to make a change in his behavior for the better. In the discussion Tiptoety cites, you will notice further on that I entered the dispute myself (see here). This is because Ryulong realized he was starting to go too far, and so he sought me out on IRC for advice on how to proceed and assistance in working with Mythdon. As the discussion continued, Mythdon made increasingly confusing logical fallacies and I began to feel as though Mythdon was deliberately making a scene in an effort to provoke Ryulong into making the sort of claims Tiptoety is accusing him of. This comment in particular shows a very blatant assumption of bad faith from Mythdon. In other situations, Ryulong has made efforts to contact other administrators to discuss matters he is involved in, and I believe has become more moderate with his use of the tools. Just last night, he was apparently surprised when I recommended he block a user caught making hoaxes and socking for "a couple weeks", feeling as though a few days would be more appropriate for what at first glance appeared to be a first offense.

In conclusion, I feel as though the changes that the above users are looking for are not going to happen overnight, however they are occurring. It takes time for these things to occur, and there is a definite learning curve involved. Ryulong needs to be given the opportunity for these changes to happen, and two weeks is insufficient to that purpose, particularly when the filing parties are only able to refer to one incident in which Ryulong did in fact show promise. Hersfold 03:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

To Mythdon (following edit conflict)

Aside from the incident Tiptoety and I noted, have there been any similar incidents since the RfC? Hersfold 03:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

To Tiptoety / Vassyana

I've just been going through my IRC logs, and while I cannot provide copies of them at this time per policy, I can attest that Ryulong has contacted me or others multiple times for "sanity checks" on actions he was planning on making. Dates I list below will be in Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-4, and so may not necessarily line up with server time. Sorry.

• March 16 - Ryulong requested my assistance in working with Mythdon in the incident previously mentioned.
• March 19 - Ryulong asked me in the admins channel regarding blocking users at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Party Animal Magazine. He (rightly) suspected socking at the AfD, and was wondering if it was appropriate to block the author of the article as well. He originally considered 24 hours, and was surprised when I recommended two weeks. When we both looked into things further, we eventually decided on the current indefinite block.
• March 20 - Ryulong asked me if he could rollback the addition of images he was about to delete (according to policy) because the images were added in multiple edits. I recommended he use Twinkle or another method, which he readily accepted.
• March 20 - Ryulong asked me if it would be appropriate to rollback this edit. As there is no such show as "Power Rangers: History Force" I told him it should be fine.

Those are the only incidents in which I have been personally involved, but if I have time later I may try to go through logs et al. to find some more instances of improvement. Hersfold 17:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Master&Expert

I am ambivalent towards Ryulong and his admin work. On the one hand, he is an all-around excellent maintenance worker which the site highly values. But on the other, I have found some of his comments to have a very "as an admin my judgment is naturally sound" feel to them. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement from Majorly

Ryulong has been an admin since early 2007. If I hadn't known this, I would have assumed he was relatively inexperienced, due to the number of abusive and other problematic actions he has done with admin rights. Lots of significant concerns were raised on his successful RFA, that passed with an unusually low percentage. Ryulong says he is trying to work on issues raised from the RFCs. This is not acceptable, when one has never really been suited for adminship. Bluntly, if he had never been an admin, and was to request now, he'd fail dismally. The problem here is that there has been a significant problem for a long, long time. Admins need to always have trust and respect from the community, and Ryulong lacks both these things, and has done for a while. His continuation as an admin is generally a net negative in my opinion. We should refrain from giving people, especially admins, chance after chance after chance to "work on issues" and to "redeem themselves". Why? Because there should never be any issues to work on or to redeem.

Statement from Rocksanddirt

Hersfolds statements really concern me. If Ryulong has been getting advice from others, and still shows a pattern of abusive use of tools, such that experienced users feel the need to do something; I think there is something for the committee to review. After the first RfC on Ryulong, he seemed to take a lot of the communities concerns to heart. At that one, there were a number of other admins, who were very dismissive of the attempt to reign in one of their own. It was only after numerous users pointed to specific problems, and requested not deadmining (though some did), but simply a change in his behavior that obstruction slowed and the concerns could be clearly presented to Ryulong. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by involved Are you ready for IPv6?

Okay I spotted this recently. I've not dealt with Ryulong that I can remember of myself but in his 3rd RFA which he passed from that to become administrator http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ryulong he said he would be open for recall.

Here's a quote:

---

---

Basically, arbitrations are very time consuming and lengthy. It often has people getting all angry at each other and results in some people getting punished, sanctioned, etc. The administrators open to recall is a there to make things more efficient. Why not just use that to handle things instead? I think it would save a lot of time. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ooops I typed the URL wrong. I went to the first RFA and not the third. The third was http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ryulong_3 and the quote I was looking for was

---

---

Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I want to point out a few things before this is opened/rejected/whatever; comprising of a note, an unusual comment/critique, and another comment.

The RfC was closed by Tiptoety, and I added it to the archives with the understanding that it may be reopened only immediately following a decline of this request - should arbitrators deem it necessary opening the case, then there's no justification to turn back.

Beyond this, there's really only one other thing I believe I've commented on with respect to this - that Mythdon should voluntarily agree to stop interacting with or commenting on Ryulong. There was general agreement with this view by others, as suggested on the RfC's talk page. All that said, courtesy of what I call "modern technology" with respect to email access, when certain users, even if they are arbitrators, join forces with grudge-holders in allowing the needless escalation of matters (as opposed to dissolving them by joining the wider community chorus that says '...back off; find a more productive hobby that isn't so....'), I suppose it'd be too much to expect a decent understanding or feeling of care with respect to this sensitive issue. The justification for dissolving the issue and letting other issues arise without interference, far outweighs the justification for refusing to do so (which by contrast, has the effect of a nasty toxic chemical reaction of sorts - it'd be sad to see it blow up in anyones face). But I digress, and note the uneasy distinction (if any) between "a very hypothetical scenario" and "reality".

With the exception of this issue concerning interacting/commenting, the only other thing worth pointing out is two broad categories which should make 'what the decision ought to be' quite clear...but then again, I myself don't have a view on this dispute. :) Sometimes an RfC needs to move straight to arbitration, even where opened for a short time. But it is sometimes important to keep an RfC open, or to wait after an RfC is closed - the subject may make genuine (and I really do mean genuine) attempts to improve, yet may at any or all times, still put up fronts as if he/she will do little to nothing. That's all I have to say. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

• Recuse - per my statement. Tiptoety 01:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Question, some of the Arbs have mentioned the behavior of all parties and some have mentioned only Ryulong, what is the preferred case-name? MBisanz 06:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (9/0/0/3)

• Accept There seems to be sufficient areas of concern here that we need to take a deeper look at. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Hersfold's comment is convincing and sways me towards declining the request. However, I would like to see more indications about improvement or lack thereof, as well as related signs illustrating the viability of dispute resolution. There are those saying there is improvement and those saying that the same problems are continuing without abatement. While I am currently leaning towards declining this request, I would like more evidence and information before making a determination. --Vassyana (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Accept. There is obvious disagreement over how to interpret Ryulong's actions and improvement (or lack thereof). Some of the concerns and conflicts are of a long-standing nature. Also, per Coren and FloNight. --Vassyana (talk) 06:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment; I would prefer to see indications that Ryulong is ignoring the RfC or is acting in significantly problematic ways since that RfC before I would consider accepting. — Coren  17:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

  After consideration, accept; the matter appears divisive enough, and the alleged misuse serious enough, that it's almost certainly better to examine Ryulong's behavior and its context in the (more) calm setting of a case than by repeated RfCs. — Coren  21:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Accept. I rejected a previous similar request for arbitration about Ryulong as premature. I hoped that the RFC would give needed feedback to address the concerns. "If" the problems have continued, the concerns need to be looked at by the Committee as the only people that can sanction an administrator for abuse of admin tools. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC) (tweaked wording to clarify that I'm not decided on the seriousness of the concerns). FloNight♥♥♥ 18:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - currently reviewing. Depending on further statements, should be decided on my view about acceptance or rejection by tonight (Sunday/Monday UTC). Leaning towards acceptance, as previous RFCs and RFARs exist, but need to check what changes or lack of changes took place since those discussions. Have also noted that the most recent RfC was closed as this RFAR had been filed, and that there had been no activity at the RfC in five days. Not sure exactly how long an RfC should be left to be given a chance, but will be reviewing that as well. Carcharoth (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept per Vassyana and John. Carcharoth (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Ryulong and Mythdon, can you both separately provide a commitment to disengage in a way that would be mutually acceptable? Has there been a problem since March 15? John Vandenberg 01:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

  Accept. Ryulong and Mythdon have both responded, but neither have given a commitment to disengage. In the recent history of "List of Power Rangers: RPM episodes, which includes an edit war between Ryulong and Mythdon, Ryulong uses undo without an edit summary, which is the crux of WP:RFAR/Dbachmann#Rollback and a prominent part of the RFC. John Vandenberg 08:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Updated 09:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC).

• Accept to look at behavior of all involved parties. Wizardman 03:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. Admin conduct is one of our main purposes. Cool Hand Luke 18:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Accept - per Wizardman. -- FayssalF - 19:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Ryulong is a dedicated administrator with some well-known sharp edges. I remember writing one of my long posts about Ryulong and his critics, urging him to work on various aspects of his tone and use of tools, a year and a half ago. I am glad to see a commitment to some changes in light of the recent RfC, but regret that some of that hadn't happened awhile back. Ordinarily, I would say that an administrator's promise to improve based on recent RfC feedback would buy a "decline" from me at least for a few weeks to see how things went, but I understand that some of the concerns here are of longer standing, and so perhaps it is time to examine them, as six of my colleagues (so far) believe. Being conflicted on the matter, I abstain from voting on acceptance, and will await the evidence phase in this soon-to-open case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Accept  Roger Davies 06:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability/Use English/Burdens in proxy battlefield article

This template is currently non-functional due to T39256.

Initiated by Tenmei (talk) at 20:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Tenmei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Teeninvestor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kraftlos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PericlesofAthens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Arilang1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff. 1 Teeninvestor
• Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1 Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring -- diff? deleted by Teeninvestor
• Link 2 Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty

Statement by Tenmei

This complaint encompasses 3 specific issues and 1 broader topic. Teeninvestor's refusal to agree to mediation thwarted the opportunity to have his views confirmed or modified. I cannot walk away from this because the concepts are at the very heart of my participation in collaborative writing. ArbCom cannot allow this to go unaddressed because the consequences are too grave:

• Issue 1: I posted the following diff; and if I was wrong in any part of it, I must know so that I will not continue to make similar mistakes in the future.

Teeninvestor insists that words and actions consistent with this diff are disruptive. If what I've said and done is persistent disruption, it needs to stop.

When I and others questioned an unfamiliar text in Chinese, Teeninvestor asserted forcefully that I and others had the burden to prove error before deleting the edit and/or before posting a "dubious"-tag or a "synthesis"-tag on an article page. This view was expressed with increasing levels of derision personal affronts. Example: diff. If what I've done is persistent vandalism, it needs to stop.

• Issue 2. Teeninvestor denies that WP:V incorporates any WP:Burden other than formatting. Example: diff If

• Issue 3. Teeninvestor denies that WP:RSUE incorporates any WP:Burden in Chinese. Example: diff

• Issue 4: In Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty, real-world factions have vied for control, turning it into a polemical battleground. In the venue which evolved before my eyes, long-term warriors have proven to be toxic. Under "battlefield" conditions as I encountered them, academic integrity becomes an all-encompassing priority. Any other course of action undercuts the credibility of the article and our collaborative wiki-encyclopedia. Although Issues 1-3 stand on their own, they have become conflated in real-world disputes over 21st-century borders or oil and mineral rights. The initial impetus for this article was "salting the earth" in an article about Central Asia in the 7th-8th century in order to undercut a dispute in an article about China in the 12th-13th centuries; and the article has been continually attacked by those intending to affect current affairs by re-writing history. This perverts my ability to conribute to an article about a relatively minor topic; and it became increasingly difficult to follow on a coherent thread of reason.

• A. diff -- genesis of battlefield?
• B. diff -- genesis of a tag team coordination? diff -- "consensus was made out entirely of pro mongolian editors"?
• C. diff -- "mongolia was owned by chinese before mongols ever appeared, and belongs to china"?
• D. diff -- pro-ROC? pro-PRC??
• E. diff -- "Chinese histiography is quite reliable. In any case, its far better than vain attempts to create a supposedly 'Mongolian' identity"?

The title of Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty suggests something to do with the history of 7th-8th century Central Asia, but an unexplained backstory or subtext intruded unexpectedly again and again. This bigger problem cannot be resolved with this case, but at least ArbCom is now expressly alerted to the existence of a pernicious metastasis which will continue ad nauseam in other articles until effective counter-measures can be contrived. On the basis of my editing experience, this is not an isolated incident. The specifics are limited to the article and parties here; and the ambit of this dispute is also emblematic of problems affecting unrelated editors and articles. --Tenmei (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to John Vandenberg

The issues here are quickly devalued and the focus is easily distracted. This is evidenced by Teeninvestor's hollow POV-argument below and in that argument's tentative acceptance by Wizardman, who seems initially inclined to construe a "content dispute" in the empty sound of one hand clapping.

Issues #1, #2 and #3 do happen to involve a Chinese language text, but the disruptive views which are affirmed below by Teeninvestor are independent of any specific content or language. In the narrow context of the three inter-related issues, the presumed need for a "Chinese-literate" consultant would seem unjustified; and yet, Newyorkbrad and Coren both endorse this notion.

Opinions such as these demonstrate that, despite its obvious clumsiness, the unconventional composite "Verifiability/Use English/Burdens" does need to remain part of the title in order to underscore explicit non-content-related issues. For redundant clarity, I intend that "Verifiability"=WP:Verifiability; "Use English:=WP:Verifiability#Sources (Non-English sources); and "Burden"=WP:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. No one disputes that my wording is awkward, but the development of this thread reveals that Issues #1, #2 and #3 are readily conflated with distracting corollary matters.

In view of what others have posted, I endorse changing the title to read

In this analysis of Issues #1, #2 and #3, there is no opportunity to perceive a content-specific POV. Nor is there anything to do with WP:NPOV. Nor does it matter whether Teeninvestor's proffered text was published in Urdu, Wolof, Navajo or Chinese. I'm mindful of Misplaced Pages:Silence and consensus; but my restraint in responding thus far should not be taken to imply qui tacet consentire videtur ("He who remains silent is understood to consent"). --Tenmei (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Risker and Carcharoth

If an ArbCom review of Issues #1, #2, and #3 can be helped by contributions "with respect to the interpretation/verifiability & sourcing issues," here are arguably relevant googled links:

• "Verifiability" Wiktionary definition ...?
• WP:V mirrored in Wiktionary policy re-stated in different words ...?
• WP:V mirrored in Simple English Misplaced Pages policy re-stated in different words ...?
• WP:V mirrored in Wikiversity policy re-stated in different words ...?
• The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defintion: "verifiability" parsed analysis, distinguishing (a) a confirmation of truth or authority; (b) the evidence for such a confirmation; and (c) a formal assertion of validity ...?
• Oxford Essential Dictionary of the U.S. Military definition: "verifiability" parsed analysis, distinguishing (a) the process of establishing the truth, accuracy, or validity of something; and (b) the process of ensuring that the procedures of a validation process are followed ...?

In this non-controversial context, a more nuanced vocabulary might develop. This is a practical step, which could be part of what Risker and Carcharoth had in mind? --Tenmei (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Roger Davies

Yes, an otherwise intractable problem is presented; and its parts are easily conflated as a Gordian Knot. Unraveling this knot is well within ArbCom's ability and purview. Crucially, as John Vandenberg observes, "a more appropriate way forward hasn't presented itself."

No, the non-specific "other avenues" you mention are unavailing. The nested, narrowly-focused policy fundamentals are ill-served by abstention, which is neither practicable nor practical. The slim history of this "request"-thread offers proof enough that there is no better venue than this one.

Issues #1, #2 and #3 are ripe. Much of Issue #4 may not be ripe, but abstaining becomes indistinguishable from refusing to acknowledge how its emblematic conflation affects every attempt to construe Issues #1, #2 and #3. Candidly, all other dispute resolution venues become mere exercises in futility if your ArbCom colleagues join you in deciding to abstain here. --Tenmei (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Teeninvestor

The problem from my POV is outlined below:

1. Tenmei's misguided editing of the article, despite his lack of knowledge on this article, as shown by this statement:

Example: diff. In working with him, he has deleted many sections without explanation, despite them being sourced.

2. Tenmei's violation of WP:V; Although Tenmei insists I violated WP:V, he has so far refused to provide a single source to back up his claims. This is in itself violative of WP:V. Other users have already informed him of this error, as shown by this post from a respected fellow editor. So far, however, Tenmei has refused to provide a single example or source to support his claims. This, I believe, sums up the main point of the dispute:

Talk:Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty#diff So far, Tenmei has failed to find a single error with the source or the article itself, but he insists on pushing his own POV and deleting large sections of it without explanation.

3. Tenmei's violation of WP:CONSENSUS. In his refusal to collaborate and listen with other editors, he engaged in pushing his POV on others.

User_talk:PericlesofAthens#diff

Talk:Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty#Sources_used Tenmei even engaged in vandalism in violation of WP:POINT, attempting to merge the article with "Salting the earth", as seen here.

4. Tenmei's misunderstanding of the policy with WP:BURDEN:

WP:BURDEN means that I must cite and source my information, which I have done accordingly. His insistence that I provide a "translation" of every piece of information that I used in Chinese is not only unduly burdensome, and would in fact prevent the use of any foreign-language source on wikipedia. This is not to mention that I have not used any direct translations from the book, which I believe the policy refers to.

Tenmei made repeated attempts to impose his POV, even when I was working on other articles. I only hope this committee can put an end to Tenmei's attempts to impose his own POV so me and other editors can use our efforts in more useful matters. To sum it up, a quote about what must be done: Talk:Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty#diff

I would prefer it if Arbitrators did not hear this case, as I believe this is, at heart, simply a misunderstanding of wikipedia policy and a minor content dispute between a majority of editors and one obstinate one; it would be a waste of mine, Tenmei's and arbitrators' time to resolve this. It would reward users for hounding others through abusing wikipedia's dispute resolution process. I believe Tenmei demonstrates the below signs: "http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:DE#Signs_of_disruptive_editing". Teeninvestor (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Yaan

The source I am using is a history book published in China. Also, this adds to my point that this is really the result of a content dispute/obstinacy of one editor, user:Tenmei. It is a tertiary source, I believe(compendium of old histories which were secondary sources). In addition, I provided links for the site of the book, which (unfortunately) Tenmei did not use.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Links to source in question(in Chinese)

• Template:Zh icon - "http://www.dushu.com/book/11657212/"
• Template:Zh icon - "http://www.haotushu.com/press/61"
• Template:Zh icon - "http://www.ilucking.com/press/neimenggurenminchubanshe/."

Teeninvestor (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I know that the Inner Mongolian People's Publishing House exists (I knew that before, I even own a book published there), but I am actually more interested in who the authors are. Btw. WP:RS suggests that tertiary sources "should not be used for detailed discussion". Yaan (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

So, is the Li Bo who wrote the book this guy? Yaan (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe it would be a secondary source, as it summarizes ancient histories(primary sources). As to the author, he has the same name, but im not sure it may be the same guy.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Tenmei

Tenmei, you're not getting the point. You have yet to present a single source or other thing rejecting my source, and have not explained any of your reasoning besides using unintelligble bureaucratic doublespeak that belongs more in a government file than on wikipedia. Remember WP:BURO. Also, you have yet to address the concerns of editors such as Pericles and Myself regarding, to put it kindly, what is your problem with the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to FayssalF

I believe, and I will iterate again, this is not a matter for arbitration. It is, at most, a content dispute(in which one editor repeatedly insists on something that without consensus for others). I believe Chinese-language editors are being looked for to deal with this issue. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Til Eulenspiegel

I was requested to comment. My only encounter with User:Tenmei is at Talk:Salting the earth which he filled with bizarre proposals to merge that article with "Asia during the Tang Dynasty" or whatever it is. There is no mention in the article Salting the earth whatsoever of the Tang Dynasty, nor has he made clear any context for merging these two unrelated articles. Because of the lack of context, I took this as disruptive and deleted most of his lengthy additions to the talkpage. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by PericlesofAthens

What more needs to be said from my end? I feel that I have criticized User:Tenmei's actions enough at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. If, as the arbitrator's opinion suggests, you are looking for an experienced editor who can clear up verifiability issues with the Li Bo and Zheng Yin source used by User:Teeninvestor, then perhaps I can be of some help. Frankly I've been busy with other things; otherwise, I would have taken the time to do a little research, as I still have access to a university library. However, I'm not going there today, so I don't see how I'll be of much immediate use. Bowing out.--Pericles of Athens 15:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Arilang1234

1. I am here to support user Teeninvestor, because Teeninvestor is a keen content contributor, only need some editors to verify the source.
2. User Tenmei seems to have a confused sense of logic and historical time line, because no nation in the world is going to make any serious claim of oil and gas field based on 2000 years old historical facts.
3. I suggest user Tenmei to start his/or her own wikipedia, and make up own wiki rules. Arilang 13:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Yaan

I think there are two somewhat separate problems here. One is that there is some trolling going on by an anonymous IP (the one who created the article in the first place). I think previous statements of this IP are clear enough to rule out WP:AGF, even if some editors in the AfD discussion did think otherwise.

The other problem is that the academic credentials of the source used by User:Teeninvestor are unclear and that Teeninvestor has made no attempt to deal with this. Maybe because both Teeninvestor and Tenmei were a bit too involved in their conflict to clear this isssue up. I am aware this is a problem of a lot of WP articles, but I think it really is the burden of the contributor who introduces a source to give evidence why it is relevant, at least in the case of disputes. I don't really think Teeninvestor is misrepresenting his source, certainly not consciously. But that still leaves open the question who the authors of his source are: amateur historians, local politicians, or maybe experts who studied Central Asia in the 7th century for all their life? It is also unclear what kind of source is used, secondary or tertiary. I don't think asking for clarifications on that matter and treating stuff as unsourced if no clarification is forthcoming is inappropriate. Yaan (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Caspian blue

I will leave my opinion for arbitrators to figure out what is a problem and "who are the involved parties". First, this can be shown as a nationalistic dispute between China and Mongol, or a failure of abiding by principle rules. But the request may be a due course because nothing was sorted out after tendentious edit warring and disruption were happening since the creation of the article. Tenmei and Teeninvester both violated 3RR (4RR ~ 6RR), but no admin did enforce to them for probably the lengthy, and weird report file.

The selection of the involved editors are also odd and totally excludes Mongolian editors and others who participated in this dispute such as Gantuya eng (talk · contribs), GenuineMongol (talk · contribs), and G Purevdorj (talk · contribs). All of three should appear here to give their opinion as the "involved party" for ArbCom to decide whether to proceed to the dispute. In fact, Kraftlos, PericlesofAthens, Arilang1234 are not involved at all, but just came to give "3rd opinion" per Teeninvest's request to turn out the flame. Though PericlesofAthens and Arilang1234 are members of WP:WikiProject China. The meditation attempt was failed because of Teeninvester's unwillingness and Tenmei's failure to communicate civilly. I doubt that Nlu would help out for the case because he does not seem to care about nationalistic feuds, and he uses Chinese primary sources for his articles to be featured as DYK. So at least, RFC/3O/Mediation were tried except RFC/U before the request.

As soon as the article was created and subsequently went to AFD, I noticed that the creator, Sarsfs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is highly likely a sock of banned user, ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) who is an extreme Pro-Han Chinese and has harassed Asian editors. Given the same cliche (hohoho, etc)/writing habits/attacking styles, I bet Sarsfs and NYC anon with Verizon ISP who appeared to the article are ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ. (see:1, 2, 3 4)

As for the contested Chinese books, I can confirm notability of only one book, Outlines of the History of the Chinese ISBN 7538700420. The author, Bo Yang was a very famous Taiwanese author with a radical political view. Translated versions of the book are sold in other countries. (eg., the translated title is different from the original) Here is a book review from a reputable newspaper However, the problem is lied in the other book "5000 years of Chinese history" (中华五千年) written by Li Bo, Zheng Yin, that is primarily used for Teeninvester's claimed contents. I can't find any review nor information from "reliable news or sites" except advertising sites. The two authors do not seem like notable authors/scholars too according to g-hits/books/scholar.

Plus, everyone point finger at each other's behaviors on the article and AfD (eg. 5, 6), so I recommend Arbitrators to look into both content disputes and behaviors of the involved editors if you take the case.--Caspian blue 22:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

• I would ask the the parties please clearly sign their posts, also will be checking for length. MBisanz 23:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• I think this request is in need of a simpler name, such as "Mongolia during Tang rule" or "Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty", or something (discuss on the talk page if necessary). I have added a notice for the Mongolia work group, and notified user:Fritzpoll, user:PericlesofAthens and user:Til Eulenspiegel. John Vandenberg 10:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree - simpler title is needed, hopefully that will help point to the crux of the dispute. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/2/0/7)

• Comment. Please provide the archive link for the relevant request at the edit warring noticeboard. Have any of the content noticeboards, such as WP:RSN or WP:NORN, been tried? Have any other reports been filed on the administrative noticeboards, besides the edit warring report? Has anyone sought a third opinion or filed a request for comment? --Vassyana (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  Decline, for now. From all appearances, there are still multiple avenues left untried and available for the resolution of both the conduct and content portions of this dispute. Some of the issues may be a bit complicated and/or require a bit of expert assistance, but in the scheme of things that can be said about quite a large portion of the topics we cover. I'd encourage the participants to make use of the content and conduct noticeboards as necessary and to seek out the input of one or more uninvolved Chinese-speaking editors. --Vassyana (talk) 05:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Some input from a Chinese-speaking administrator or experienced editor on the sourcing/verifiability and related issues might be helpful here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• I'm going to second that request from an uninvolved Chinese-literate editor; it does appear that any case would revolve around the sources, and a good interpretation of them appears indispensable. — Coren  00:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• I have asked at the Arbitration Clerks' Noticeboard for one of the clerks to try to find a suitable wikiproject at which to post a request for assistance from an experienced editor/admin with respect to the interpretation/verifiability & sourcing issues. Risker (talk) 04:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: for what it's worth, User:Nlu might make a good person to take care of that, though I'm not sure whether or not he's involved. He'd be my go-to guy in this case though. As for the case, I'll say decline for now since it's basically a content dispute, though i coud be persuaded. Wizardman 18:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - this will take some time to review and understand (for me at least). Noting here that I'm aware of the request, but unable to fully review for a few days. Hopefully more statements will have been made by then by uninvolved users who may want to opine and explain what they see happening here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• Default to Accept. There are issues here, and a more appropriate way forward hasnt presented itself. John Vandenberg 01:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I see that we are stuck here. Has any Chinese-speaking editor who would help been found? Do the parties agree with that step? I read user:PericlesofAthens said they would take care of that but—since they are a named party of the dispute—do the parties agree with them helping in that direction? -- FayssalF - 20:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain for now, per my colleagues. There is clearly a problem but there are better avenues for resolution, which appear unexplored.  Roger Davies 06:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarifications and other requests

• WP:RFAC
• WP:RCAM

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

• Misplaced Pages arbitration